The statists may have failed on the federal level to enact new anti-gun measures this year, but their farm teams in the state legislatures are stepping into the breach.

In April, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy signed new legislation that adds more than 100 firearms to the state’s so-called “assault weapons” ban (none of the guns on the list are actually assault weapons, since none can be set to fire full-auto.) The law also creates what officials have called the nation’s “first dangerous weapon offender registry” as well as “eligibility rules” for buying any rifle, shotgun or ammunition.

To get a new “long gun eligibility certificate” in Connecticut, an applicant will have to sit through (and pay for) a firearms safety training course, be fingerprinted, and undergo a national criminal background and involuntary commitment /voluntary admission check. (In other words, if you sought psychiatric help 40 years ago, you could find yourself jailed awaiting trial for “illegal gun possession/ mental health,” even if you’ve been a law-abiding gun owner ever since. The federals are prosecuting just such a case right now, in Nye County, Nevada.)

Buying ammunition in Connecticut will require a new revocable “ammunition eligibility certificate”, which will also require the applicant to pass a national criminal background check.

Do I need to mention that none of this would have prevented young Adam Lanza from killing a bunch of schoolchildren in Newtown, Conn., last year, since the way he got his weapons and ammunition was to murder his mother and steal hers, which were all legally owned even in gun-hating Connecticut?

The new Connecticut law also requires background checks for all firearms transfers.

Lawmakers in Sacramento thought requiring a special permit for anyone who wants to buy ammunition sounded like a great idea, and proceeded to pass a similar measure, themselves. The California state Senate in late May OK’d a bill that creates new state permits requiring background checks for buyers of ammunition and also sets up an “ammo registry.”

On May 29, The Sacramento Bee reported “The California Senate today approved a package of bills that tighten the state’s regulation of firearms by outlawing detachable and large” (read “normal”) “capacity magazines, (and) keeping track of people who buy ammunition.”

But the real winner was the announcement by California Attorney General Kamala Harris, also in late May, that effective immediately all new semi-automatic firearms sold in the state of California must be designed to create a unique microstamp on every cartridge case ejected when a gun is fired.

The idea is for a tiny engraving on the firing pin to stamp a microscopic identifier onto the primer.

The law was signed by former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007 and was delayed due to patent stipulations in the legislation. But at a Los Angeles news conference, Harris announced micro-stamping has cleared all technological and patent hurdles and would be required on all newly sold semiautomatics, effective immediately.

Skeptics point out no major manufacturer has embraced the technology as yet, meaning that what California may have done is to simply enact a de facto ban on the sale of new semi-auto pistols, which is unlikely to break the hearts of any of these Democrats, even when rape victims tearfully testify that they wish they’d had a handgun to defend themselves.

“This is not going to help solve crimes,” predicts NRA attorney C.D. Michel, who promises a lawsuit. “It’s easily defeated.”

In fact, Michel said, few manufacturers are likely to add this expensive feature for guns sold in a single state, and will likely just sell in the remaining 49, where demand already far exceeds supply.

Do we really need to point out that none of these laws are likely to have much impact on criminals, who generally use stolen or black-market guns, anyway?

Firing pins can also be traded out for replacement pins with no markings — though watch for the gun-grabbers to next try to outlaw the sale of replacement firing pins.

Nor would it take much of a genius to simply use a revolver, then reach a gloved hand into a pocket to sprinkle the scene with some spent brass of similar caliber picked up off the ground the last time the police marksmanship team put in some practice at the range. (Or will police be exempted from the “microstamping” requirement, along with so many other things?)

Similar legislation is now under consideration in New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maryland, Wisconsin, and Illinois.

Meantime, are we noticing a trend here? Do we enjoy being constantly on the defensive?

If you play nothing but defense you can’t win, because the aggressors face no cost or penalty for coming back again and again, advancing their cause a little more each time.

Look at the federal income tax.

It couldn’t possibly cripple entrepreneurship, destroy job-creation and turn us into a nation of overgrown children on the dole, proponents argued a century ago. Ridiculous! After all, it would merely be a levy of a couple percent on the very rich — the average person would never even have to think about it!

A century passes, and today many middle-class Americans consult their accountants year-round about the most mundane expenditures: “Is that tax deductible? What are the tax consequences? Depreciation? Do I log that mileage? How will we explain that on our tax returns?”

Or take the campaign to outlaw tobacco. First smokers were told there would be “smoking areas” and “non-smoking areas.” Was that enough? Of course not. A few years later, they got rid of the “smoking areas,” even after businesses had been encouraged to spent big bucks on new ventilation systems. Instead, purchasers of this legal product had to go outside and smoke in the rain.

Then they started to ban smoking within 20 feet of the entrances to all buildings, as well as outdoors on beaches and in parks. A few years ago, it was the stuff of satire to warn that eventually young moms would have to fear being charged with child abuse for smoking in the presence of their own children. Is anyone still laughing?

So why shouldn’t this same gang use the same strategy as they aim to disarm the populace?

In his new book, “At the Brink: Will Obama Push Us Over the Edge?” our friend John Lott reports that he actually met Barack Obama when they were both on the law school faculty at the University of Chicago. “I first met him in 1996, shortly after my research on concealed handgun laws and crime had come to national attention,” Mr. Lott writes. “I introduced myself, and he responded ‘Oh, you are the gun guy.’ ‘Yes, I guess so,’ I answered. ‘I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns, Obama replied. I suggested that it might be fun to have lunch and talk about that sometime. He simply grimaced and turned away, ending the conversation.”

When Mr Obama says he “doesn’t believe that people should be able to own guns,” he of course doesn’t mean the dozen armed bodyguards who surround him and his family every minute of the day and night, or all those other armed federal agents who daily impose the will of the statists on the nation.

No man of conscience who “doesn’t believe that people should be able to own guns” could raise his hand and take the oath for any federal office — let alone the presidency — since all require a vow to “protect and defend the Constitution,” which includes the proscription that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The point is that we can expect nothing but misdirection and treachery from such immoral characters, so it’s past time to get off the defensive, hoping the other side will finally decide to play by the rules.

We must propose laws and constitutional amendments calling for the immediate imprisonment of anyone who either proposes or votes for any measure which in any way makes it more difficult or expensive to manufacture for civilian use, or to buy, sell, transfer, own, or carry any weapon of military usefulness, including rocket launchers and belt-fed machine guns.

No, we won’t succeed right away. But the point is to keep going at them, the way they’ve kept coming at us, placing them constantly on the defensive, knowing that if they relax their vigil for a single day we’ll pass such a bill first in Wyoming, then in Alaska, constantly gaining ground, jailing just a few of them at first for violating their oaths of office, then more, ever more, all the time insisting it’s only so we can defend the children.

7 Comments to “What have you done to make gun ownership more difficult, today?”

I couldn’t agree more that we need to drop the defensive posture and take positive action. I am not sanguine about pursuing relief by proposing more laws, (a) because I doubt you can find legislators to support that, much less propose it, and (b) because I’d rather roll back government than empower it.

I’m still on the fence about the nullification movement — I cannot get a sense yet of how that plays in endgame.

I have supported for years the practice of carrying firearms in public — preferably openly. I do not accept the concept of “concealed carry licensing”, though I may yet bow to that infringement just for safety’s sake. I much prefer open carry which, while not codified as such, is technically not illegal in my home state. But I understand that open carry where prohibited is a fast way to total prohibition of ownership.

Long story short(er), I’m still looking for a good pro-active strategy that will actually accomplish something (short of the _Black Arrow_ remedy).

The fist thing that has to happen is for at least 80 million gun owners to question the authority of any non-voluntary government to dictate anything. http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/?page_id=1294 By what legitimate authority do the legislatures, courts and so forth demand anything of us? I never consented to any of this… did you?

Far too many of those who should be our friends and allies are hard at work supporting government control of pretty much everything else. Far too many of them are quite happy with “gun control” legislation and statutes, as long as it doesn’t affect THEIR guns or other privileges.

And the right to keep and bear arms cannot stand alone, of course. That right won’t be respected until common exercise of the others become the norm, rather than some “radical” exception.

Complete civil disobedience by 80 to 100 million of us would be a good start. That’s what it will take before the controllers of all kinds get the idea that we will no longer be controlled. And I don’t have any problems at all with the Black Arrow as part of that solution.

Hello Vin,
I’ve read your column in the RJ for years, as well as your first two books and have enjoyed your writings and views. I’m sorry that you and the RJ parted ways since I feel it makes it harder now for your fine work to reach the masses. But I’m glad to see that your site is still active and that you are still pushing the message of freedom.
Thank you.